newalaan2
November 30th, 2013, 03:37
"if you don't have anything "nice" to say about an individual you should say nothing"! is complete and utter balderdash".
Is it really out of order to place limitations on obituary comments? No one claimed that Monty had any saintly attributes, but neither did anyone have anything substantive to contribute about what might have been Monty's defects. Gratuitous negativity is just simply out of place in this type of thread. It's not a matter of freedom of expression, but rather something that is dictated by common decency. IMHO
Yes it is out of order to have limitations, I don't have a problem with moving gratuitously negative, nasty comments out of this particular thread, but not to have them wiped from the forum altogether, that is my point. There is a very broad range of members opinions on SGT and I don't think any should be excluded, the only posts which should be totally deleted are those which can give a legal problem for the Board/moderator/owner. And I stand by the claim that it is nonsense and utter balderdash to insist that if you don't have anything "nice" to say about an individual you should say nothing, my god if that was the case there would be a lot of victims of, and/or those affected by nasty individuals who would never get any redress! Common decency is all well and good but what if there does happen to be genuine reasons for frank comments. As I say it was more about comments being deleted completely from the Board.
As I said previously in this thread, I have experienced only positives with Monty, I really only knew him over the period of a week, but that is all I have to go on, so therefore I will keep my personal comments in line with those good experiences. But if others may have had less than positive experiences and they find themselves frustrated at the "positive only" angle ...then they should be allowed to make whatever comments they wish, there should be a place on the forum for them to do so. If a thread with a more negative slant is set up then those who don't want to witness negative comments can avoid it by not clicking on to it.
For content to be completely deleted by the owner as he has now admitted, purely on the basis of a few complaining PMs and the fact he personally agreed just based on "bad taste" then where does one draw the line for deletion and censorship? It is the thin end of the wedge. That is the point.
The other thing about having somewhere these nasty comments can be discussed it also gives the opportunity for those who may dispute any claims made to be able to "set the record straight". If the comments made are out of pure nastiness with no basis then that also lets the rest of the members make their mind up about the credibility of those members who made the post and what they are actually capable of, still no reason to delete and censor.
It is a pity that this post is on a thread about Monty, but that is where the responses were. I would be perfectly happy for a separate thread to contain the posts which do not specifically celebrate the life of Monty.
Is it really out of order to place limitations on obituary comments? No one claimed that Monty had any saintly attributes, but neither did anyone have anything substantive to contribute about what might have been Monty's defects. Gratuitous negativity is just simply out of place in this type of thread. It's not a matter of freedom of expression, but rather something that is dictated by common decency. IMHO
Yes it is out of order to have limitations, I don't have a problem with moving gratuitously negative, nasty comments out of this particular thread, but not to have them wiped from the forum altogether, that is my point. There is a very broad range of members opinions on SGT and I don't think any should be excluded, the only posts which should be totally deleted are those which can give a legal problem for the Board/moderator/owner. And I stand by the claim that it is nonsense and utter balderdash to insist that if you don't have anything "nice" to say about an individual you should say nothing, my god if that was the case there would be a lot of victims of, and/or those affected by nasty individuals who would never get any redress! Common decency is all well and good but what if there does happen to be genuine reasons for frank comments. As I say it was more about comments being deleted completely from the Board.
As I said previously in this thread, I have experienced only positives with Monty, I really only knew him over the period of a week, but that is all I have to go on, so therefore I will keep my personal comments in line with those good experiences. But if others may have had less than positive experiences and they find themselves frustrated at the "positive only" angle ...then they should be allowed to make whatever comments they wish, there should be a place on the forum for them to do so. If a thread with a more negative slant is set up then those who don't want to witness negative comments can avoid it by not clicking on to it.
For content to be completely deleted by the owner as he has now admitted, purely on the basis of a few complaining PMs and the fact he personally agreed just based on "bad taste" then where does one draw the line for deletion and censorship? It is the thin end of the wedge. That is the point.
The other thing about having somewhere these nasty comments can be discussed it also gives the opportunity for those who may dispute any claims made to be able to "set the record straight". If the comments made are out of pure nastiness with no basis then that also lets the rest of the members make their mind up about the credibility of those members who made the post and what they are actually capable of, still no reason to delete and censor.
It is a pity that this post is on a thread about Monty, but that is where the responses were. I would be perfectly happy for a separate thread to contain the posts which do not specifically celebrate the life of Monty.